criterionforum.org

Dylan wrote:Don't forget that the late composer Elmer Bernstein wrote and recorded a score for "Gangs of New York," only to have it rejected by the producers ...

Was the score used with the workprint, for those who've seen it?

Andre Jurieu wrote:there are numerous reports of the director and producer clashing on creative decisions throughout filming (most notably in Vanity Fair and Esquire articles....

Can anyone post these or provide more information about them, etc? Links?

Here's a link I found off Google fairly quickly. It has a number of articles regarding the film, including the Esquire piece.

I love Scorsese's films and I share his passion for many of the films he loves dearly. But, of late, his career has been mirroring his mentor, the great Micky Powell, who I also greatly admire. Bringing Out the Dead, was Scorsese's Peeping Tom.

A Howard Hughes biopic with Di Caprio? Most Leo fans must have been thinking, "Who?". The Aviator is probably his most disappointing film to me, both in concept and execution. Gangs of New York was fascinating, but left me cold and slightly confused. Maybe the pre-release cutting did hamper it. Shades of the truncated version of Once Upon a Time in America, I feel. Casino is an extraordinary film, very powerul. A disturbing, yet exilirating expose of a fascinating 'world'. Since then, the film that he has impressed me most with, was Kundun. I love the Dalai Lama, whose life is an incredible adventure, in every sense and the care in the storytelling is beautiful. Heart and Soul filmmaking.

Scorsese's next film, The Departed doesn't sound promising. What is he doing remaking Infernal Affairs? The cast doesn't sound promising, save the great Ray Winstone. Nicholson became a Brando-esque parody of himself years ago (I love his 70s films, though) and Di Caprio, well, he's a Hollywood Face, with a few store-bought acting chops.

Scorsese can complain all he likes about the 'System' and lack of 'good work', but David Cronenberg is still going strong, making what looks like a very interesting quasi-mainstream film in A History of Violence, that will be as uncompromising as all his other films. A History of Violence will probably be a decent hit and his next film, Painkillers sounds fascinating and is sure to stir up as much controversy as Crash.

He has expressed admiration for filmmakers like Hitchcock managing to make a deeply personal, psychologically complex, visually audacious film like Vertigo near the end of classic 'Studio System' and you could argue that Scorsese's career has been a striving to make personal, artful films within the modern 'Studio System', without compromising himself or his vision, with generally successful results, I would say. But throughout his career, he has had occasionallyl bow a little and make a 'mainstream' film; I won't call it 'selling out', but films like The Color of Money, Cape Fear (originally set up as a Spielberg project) were basically he made as 'favers' to execs/producers in order to get other 'real' projects financed. These two films remain fine films, however; well-crafted and exciting. He knows how to play the game, but perhaps the game is getting to rough and unsporting for him of late. Just ask Woody Allen.

I'm not saying he is a spent force - far from it. He just seems to be walking a path, I never thought I'd see him travel. I'm looking forward greatly to his Bob Dylan TV documentary, though.

Any thoughts?

I was disappointed with the Aviator. I even managed to make it to a cinema for a proper experience (not easy in this part of the CEE), shelled out for Coke and snacks. A sprawling mess spanning nearly three hours. But then I saw it a second time; on a plane no less, full screen and squashed, and realised that it is a fairly exhilarating epic. Give it another try. Not too eager to give the boy wonder credit, but Leo held his own with this one IMO.

But what's with the comparison between Brining Out the Dead and Peeping Tom? Peeping Tom may have been pilloried upon release but I think we can safely say it is a masterful work, albeit a tad goofy menacing people with a camera tripod. I don't think Bringing Out the Dead will ever be revived or reassessed, but then time will tell I suppose. What a tiring film. I'm sure a witty quip could be dredged from the title but it's not worth it.

Scorsese can complain all he likes about the 'System' and lack of 'good work', but David Cronenberg is still going strong, making what looks like a very interesting quasi-mainstream film in A History of Violence, that will be as uncompromising as all his other films. A History of Violence will probably be a decent hit and his next film, Painkillers sounds fascinating and is sure to stir up as much controversy as Crash.

Except David Cronenberg is not really part of the same "system" Scorsese is. He works mostly in Canada and uses quite a bit of Canadian funding. In any case, he's not a Hollywood director.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:A Howard Hughes biopic with Di Caprio? Most Leo fans must have been thinking, "Who?". The Aviator is probably his most disappointing film to me, both in concept and execution.

Really? I dunno. I quite dug the film. Is it as great as GoodFellas or Casino? No but I think it is still quite an entertaining and engaging movie. I guess if he hadn't created such masterpieces beforehand our expectations might not be as high? It's like the Woody Allen debate that is going on in the Old Films section.

Since then, the film that he has impressed me most with, was Kundun. I love the Dalai Lama, whose life is an incredible adventure, in every sense and the care in the storytelling is beautiful. Heart and Soul filmmaking.

This film left me cold. Maybe I just didn't engage with the subject matter but it really didn't interest me at all.

He has expressed admiration for filmmakers like Hitchcock managing to make a deeply personal, psychologically complex, visually audacious film like Vertigo near the end of classic 'Studio System' and you could argue that Scorsese's career has been a striving to make personal, artful films within the modern 'Studio System', without compromising himself or his vision, with generally successful results, I would say. But throughout his career, he has had occasionallyl bow a little and make a 'mainstream' film; I won't call it 'selling out', but films like The Color of Money, Cape Fear (originally set up as a Spielberg project) were basically he made as 'favers' to execs/producers in order to get other 'real' projects financed. These two films remain fine films, however; well-crafted and exciting. He knows how to play the game, but perhaps the game is getting to rough and unsporting for him of late. Just ask Woody Allen.

The impression I'm getting as of late is that Scorsese desperately wants recognition from the Academy. Casino felt like his first attempt at getting an Oscar. It was a big budget epic. Gangs of New York and now The Aviator feel even more like he's trying too hard to compromise his artistic vision in order to get Oscar recognition like his contemporaries (Spielberg, et al.) but he just doesn't seem to get it that he's the perrenial outsider. He has been for so long that I can't see him getting Oscar... maybe a lifetime achievement.

I hope that he'll stop trying to do these big budget epics and get back to something on a smaller scale. I think he probably will eventually anyway as the stress and strain is getting too much for him to keep cranking these big movies out.

Like you, I don't think he's washed up and still has some great work left in him. We shall see.

I'm fairly ambivalent about Scorsese's recent features. The Age of Innocence is, I think, a masterpiece, despite some problems, but since then it's been inconsistent.

The first half of Casino is among his most brilliant work: an incredibly imaginative, multi-layered documentary of the mechanics of this great criminal machine that seems to me one of the few sound films to take as its departure point Vertov and 20s Eisenstein. Unfortunately, the human story of the film's second half, though well-executed, is unengaging and over-familiar.

I had high hopes for Kundun but it left me cold. A few dazzling effects aside, this film seemed oddly muted. Maybe it was because the script was too straightforward and simplified.

Bringing Out the Dead was an improvement, but the druglord shenanigans and other aspects of the second half bogged it down in convention - and moreover the kind of convention you find in TV drama.

I thought The Gangs of New York was maybe the weakest of the lot, probably because of the triteness of its central romantic plot. It seems pretty clear that the historical aspect of the film was where Scorsese's real interest lay, and in its current form there's a lack of balance between foreground and background. What he's really proposing here is the kind of reconception of American history that Visconti pulled off with Italian history in Senso, but it's pushed awkwardly into the background. A major re-edit might well be able to extract a flawed masterpiece from this (though it's hard to imagine that the romance stuff would emerge as any less vapid).

The Aviator, by comparison, I thought was pretty good, if more than a little unambitious (it seems odd to use that term for such a big project, but I assume most of you know what I mean). If this beautifully made, amiable puppy-dog of a movie couldn't woo the Academy, here's hoping that Scorsese writes them off for good, secure in the knowledge that history will vindicate his non-recognition.

I reckon that Scorsese is now at an equivalent position in his career as he was after The King of Comedy: big budget filmmaking is no longer scratching his creative itch, and he needs to pare back to essentials. He needs to find another After Hours (and what a terrific, vital film that still is), another Michael Ballhaus, and scale his productions down to a level where he's back in full control.

zedz wrote:another Michael Ballhaus, and scale his productions down to a level where he's back in full control.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Robert Richardson is one of the best DPs out there. I've loved the work he's done with Scorsese. Altho, I wish he would hook up with Oliver Stone again.

What's wrong with 'the aviator'? It's not 'raging bull' or 'goodfellas' for sure. Yet it's still probably one of the top 5-6 movies on Scorsese's resume. Leonardo's portrayal of Howard Hughes is a major delight, and Cate Blanchet is just Kate.

zedz wrote:I'm fairly ambivalent about Scorsese's recent features. The Age of Innocence is, I think, a masterpiece, despite some problems, but since then it's been inconsistent.

Bravo! This is my personal favorite Scorsese work, although 'goodfellas' is probably his masterpiece, along with 'raging bull'.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

zedz wrote:another Michael Ballhaus, and scale his productions down to a level where he's back in full control.

I have to disagree with you on that one. Robert Richardson is one of the best DPs out there. I've loved the work he's done with Scorsese. Altho, I wish he would hook up with Oliver Stone again.

That wasn't a comment on the quality of the cinematography in Scorsese's recent films, it was a comment on the speed of production. After his years in Fassbinder's boot camp, Ballhaus was famously fast, and it was that speed that allowed Scorsese to make 'small' films again.

davida2 wrote:I'm a die-hard Scorsese fan - and I'm in complete agreement on these. Perhaps I'm uncritical to some extent with directors I love, but I think Scorsese's weakest films outdo many other directors' masterpieces. I think these three in particular are overlooked - I've gotten something new out of them with each viewing, which is also true of almost all of the pre-'91 films.

"age of innocence" is flatout masterpiece. "casino" is uneven,a nd 'kundun' is awful. Can someone enlighten me as to how 'kundun' is a masterpiece?

John Cassavetes wrote:Marty, you've just spent a year of your life making a piece of shit. It's a good movie but don't get hooked on that stuff

Scorsese should have this tattooed on his body, so just before he decides to make movies like The Gangs of New York, Bringing Out The Dead, The Aviator he can say 'wait just a minute, do I really want to make this kind of cinema'

Age of Innocence is an amazing film. Scorcese himself called it the most violent film he ever made.

Just want to say one thing (and I know I'm going to be bashed for this):

How can you bash a director, who manages to make every film he makes significantly different than everything you've seen earlier, whether it is a Scorsese film or not. I'm a bad critic, i know, because I tend to evaluate every film according to its cultural and historical context, but I've never seen American history being portrayed as in gangs or a(n) (in)famous person as in the aviator. Not only are they unique topically, they have a style that is gripping and have numerous unique shots worth a film alone.

Marty is the only director currently in big-budget Hollywood who maintains the critical spirit of the seventies while using the budget of the 21st century . I'm totally for him doing 'small' films but still you have to give the man so much credit for being the only man who still says fuck you to everything hollywood stands for, but knows through and through how the system works. Even in Aviator and Gangs he IS Fuller, he IS Hitchcock, he IS Peckinpah......

I dont understand why people expect a masterpiece every single time, and more than that, who are we to judge that either 'the aviator' or 'gangs' isn't a masterpiece or even bad. A Scorsese fanatic should know that his films mature....(Just to name a few films turning into classics much (much!) later than heir release: Mean Streets, Raging Bull, King of comedy, Casino). I dunno......at least he's making an effort to do something different every single time he's making a film......thats why I look forward to every scorsese-related project.

point made......*sigh* let the bashing commens *sigh*

Anyone ever see his film, American Boy? I think it's terrific. The latest release of a Scorsese film is always exciting to me. I usually can't wait to see it. More than any director from the 70's except Spielberg (and for different reasons), he's still hot, still imaginitive and still kicking the door down in new and interesting ways... Where's Coppola? Of all people from that decade, I mean come on? You don't see a thread devoted to him promising a 'great debate,' right? I guess that's what hurts Woody Allen imo, because he can only do comedy. I'm going to bed... (we need a waving icon.)

Haven't seen American Boy unfortunately, but I'm very curious...Scorsese's shorts and documentary are so different from his featurefilms (You gotta love Italianamerican).
This site that has it on offer in a package with Italianamerican & the big shave. It is an unauthorised but legal package (apparantly these films can be considered Public Domain): www.revok.com

Italianamerican is one of Scorsese's greatest achievments, I feel. It's a beautiful piece of personal filmmaking. How many auteurs filmed their parents and made it a success? It is funny, informative and affectionate.

American Boy is a strange fillm. Achingly funny, although Prince is said to be a serial bullshitter. Great use of Neil Young's "Time Fades Away".

The Age of Innocence is a beautiful film. Pfeiffer is really a superb, instinctive actress and her performace here is probably her best. I do not understand the comparisons to Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (which I love) as they aren't that similar. The film owns more of a debt to David Lean's Doctor Zhivago, and, of course, many Powell-Pressburger films.

The King of Comedy just keeps getting better, for me. Rupert's mother: "Rupert? What are you doing down there?"

He should do a quirky comedy like The King of Comedy or After Hours. One of the weaknesses of his recent films have been the lack of street humour or irreverence. In short, his recent films are way too serious.

I love A Personal Journey Through American Movies and My Voyage To Italy. Great resources for anyone wishing to gain a deeper appreciation of American and Italian Cinema and beyond.

As I said in my initial post, I am greatly looking forward to his 4-hour Bob Dylan documentary, which will air in September.

Gordon McMurphy wrote: One of the weaknesses of his recent films have been the lack of street humour or irreverence. In short, his recent films are way too serious.

So, I take it we've also decided to dismiss the sheer hilarity of the sequence at the Hepburns' dinner table, where Howard Hughes is accosted by Kate's family. Certainly one of the funniest moments in any Hollywood drama I watched last year. "Snuff?!?" The film has a number of fine comic moments, including Ian Holm's bewildered expressions.

Gordon McMurphy wrote:He should do a quirky comedy like The King of Comedy or After Hours. One of the weaknesses of his recent films have been the lack of street humour or irreverence. In short, his recent films are way too serious.

Well, I think "Bring Out The Dead" falls, sort of, into that category. It seems that it is not much liked in this forum, however. I was surprised by the amount of humor in it, and I thought it was used perfectly in a film that could have beeen overly depressing. It didn't take itself too seriously, which I liked. OK, it's not a quirky comedy, but it's certainly not lacking in "street humour or irreverence".

Italianamerican is one of Scorsese's greatest achievments, I feel. It's a beautiful piece of personal filmmaking. How many auteurs filmed their parents and made it a success? It is funny, informative and affectionate.

Absolutely. I wish Criterion gets his hands on this very beautiful film now! Or even better, make it a boxset complete with Martin's mom's cookbook of the same title a la Short Cuts.

I saw Italianamerican on a crappy VHS some years ago. Very poignant and touching. It reminded me so much of my family.

This site that has it on offer in a package with Italianamerican & the big shave. It is an unauthorised but legal package (apparantly these films can be considered Public Domain):

No, these are boots. Scorsese owns the rights to his early shorts, Italianamerican, and American Boy. I'm sure we will see these at some point (via Criterion?) one day.

jorencain wrote:Well, I think "Bring Out The Dead" falls, sort of, into that category. It seems that it is not much liked in this forum, however. I was surprised by the amount of humor in it, and I thought it was used perfectly in a film that could have beeen overly depressing. It didn't take itself too seriously, which I liked. OK, it's not a quirky comedy, but it's certainly not lacking in "street humour or irreverence".

You're right: it is pretty crazy film. I liked it a lot. I really must get it soon. Which is the best DVD - R1, R2 or R4?

I said 'considered PD': apparently there is an american law that states that every unreleased oibject has the status of a PD film and can be legally distributed. At least that's there own explanation in the FAQ.